It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Release GITMO criminals - and then what?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

Oh goodness. This was amazing. Countries that are demanding the USA close GITMO are REFUSING to accept their own legal residents, who are being held there, back into their home countries.

They whine that it's too expensive .. etc etc.

HEY .. if YOU aren't going to take your own bad guys back and watch them; and YOU demand that we close the facilty that is housing them; then what are we to do with them? Release them into the USA and trust them to be good?
Release them back in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and watch them blow the heck out of coalition soldiers and civilians??


This was definately a trip reading.

news.yahoo.com...



[edit on 10/18/2006 by FlyersFan]




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh goodness. This was amazing. Countries that are demanding the USA close GITMO are REFUSING to accept their own citizens, who are being held there, back into their home countries.



Read the article again.

Curent GITMO prisoners were RESIDENTS not CITIZENS of this countries.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek


Read the article again.

Curent GITMO prisoners were RESIDENTS not CITIZENS of this countries.



he was right the first time around.


perhaps you did not read far enough



While all British citizens in Guantanamo were freed starting in 2004, Britain has balked at allowing former legal residents of the country to return, the newspaper said.


Source Yahoo News

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

he was right the first time around.
perhaps you did not read far enough



While all British citizens in Guantanamo were freed starting in 2004, Britain has balked at allowing former legal residents of the country to return, the newspaper said.


Source Yahoo News

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Look at what you posted shots.

RESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.

FF said that alied countries refuse to take back CITIZENS.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I think America should take them as it was the US who brought them to America, and as far as I know these men are not terrorists so they should not pose a threat to anyone. I mean its not like they have bean tried in a court of law and found to be guilty of anything have they. For all intents and purposes these men may well be innocent and guilty of nothing, but we will never know that will we as they have been denied due process. If you put people outide of the law how do you know they are guilty?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
Look at what you posted shots.

RESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS.

FF said that alied countries refuse to take back CITIZENS.


Whatever!

That still will not negate the fact that is where their LEGAL Home is, Will it?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
That still will not negate the fact that is where their LEGAL Home is, Will it?


Citizens or not - it's their LEGAL home. To make ya'll happy I changed the wording. It now reads - 'their own legal residents' rather than citizens.

Fact remains ... these countries complain about GITMO holding people who are legal residents of their countires ... but then if they were released or if they were offered back to those countries , those very same countries wouldn't take them.

Fact remains ... those countries compain but then do nothing to assist in the processing of the criminals. They do nothing to assist in the housing of those criminals that are from their countries.

They yak and yak .. but when handed the keys to the situation they still do nothing.



[edit on 10/18/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Citizens or not - it's their LEGAL home. To make ya'll happy I changed the wording. It now reads - 'their own legal residents' rather than citizens.


Is there an Echo in here


That was exactly what I said. I am on your side and agree on all points you have made.

I think the other poster was just playing the semantics game but that will not change anything because as you and I said it is their legal home.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I think the other poster was just playing the semantics game but that will not change anything because as you and I said it is their legal home.


Look at the bottom of the page



UK Residency - UK immigration for Permanent Residence (ILR)

However in order to retain your UK residency staus you cannot leave the UK for a period longer than 2 years. It is expected that you should maintain your ties to the UK and consider the UK your home of permenant residency.


For how long are these suspects detained in GITMO?
Three years.
And not to mention US slapped this people with terrorist tag so UK can give them a status of persona non grata.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by yanchek]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Instead of the bullocks of closing GITMO and freeing the people there, how about putting them on legal trials like people are supposed to?

If they are found guilty, leave em at gitmo to sit out their prison term.
If they are found innocent, send them home.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
If they are found guilty, leave em at gitmo to sit out their prison term.
If they are found innocent, send them home.


I agree here thematrix.

The problem is that this people (many of them innocent) has a stigma now and they lost their legal status as resident. The alternative is to ship them to their country of birth. And that's even worse.

Looks like kiddnaping people is bad afterall.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The fact that many of the ones that are/were innocent are now pissed of and hate the US for torturing them and locking them up like animals while the only thing they've done wrong is being of a certain color or religion is the same as the situation in Iraq.

The US is creating more prospect terrorists then they are stopping.

All they've done since 9/11 is create a situation where people people have every reason to hate the US and have nothing left in their life then to join a "strugle" somewhere somehow, against the US, which they now hate, be it because they have been displaced, locked up for no reason, without trial, tortured, had their families killed and bombed, had their country ruined and trown into civil war etc etc.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the people were under a totalitarian regime which, eventhough ruthless and painfull, had stability and you knew where you stood.

In both these countries, the US has turned the places over to Warlords and rivaling factions of all flavors, leaving the people of these countries stuck between not only wars fought by the coalition forces against these factions, but also between all these factions.

They said they'd bring democracy and stability to these countries but did the exact opossite and trew both of them in utter termoil.

There is no stabilitie, you can get killed by either coalition forces for aligning with a certain warlord or faction, or you can get killed by these factions for not joining them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join